OK, assuming you plan to reload for either caliber and assuming both calibers are offered in the same pistol. Which would you pick and why?

Have a .45 and have owned them for years.. But have 3 or 4 .44's.. .44 all the way..

.45 Colt - it's a bigger hammer, period. Do you plan on hunting with your chosen caliber?

Yes, but the prey will be 100lb whitetail dinks common to my area.

Either will serve you well. If you ever decide to go after bigger game, the .45 would be my choice -- personally.

I know you said you're going to reload but I'd pick the 44 based on proliferation of ammo. 45 Colt has become easier to obtain in the last few years but 44 is just very easy to get anywhere. There's really not much difference in the two for your use though.

I have grown pretty fond of the 45 Colt, but I can't get away from the 44 Magnum. Got both and like them both.



58B6-48AF-9A0D-D90EE01BAADA.jpg.html][/URL]

But still my favorite is the one in the middle.

45 Colt because I already have a couple of them along with reloading dies and components.

44 mag if starting fresh due to ease of finding ammo and I now have several friends with 44 mags to steal components from.

As already mentioned, either will be more than sufficient for the stated purpose.

I loaded and hunted with the 44 mag for about 25 years, Killed a half dozen deer & a pickup load of junk critters with it; even carried an old 4" Model 29-2 as a duty gun for a few years. It's a great cartridge.

But throughout that time I would acquire or work on the occasional 45 Colt. The cartridge impressed me with its mild manners and heavy bullet potential, even at mundane velocities. Killed my first deer with it in '98 using a Sierra 240 JHC cruising around 1300 fps and DAMN... now I had me a deer stomper! Others have fallen to the Colt cartridge using SWCs at 850-950 fps and those ballistics will produce all the deer you'll ever want to butcher.

I downsized my reloading a few years ago and the 45 Colt remains. It'll fill my needs for a heavy revolver cartridge for as long as I'll need one.

Have both. I prefer the Colt, but only if you reload. The 44 is a better choice for factory loads. The 44 also has less problems with varying tolerences. Ruger still will not properly throat the 45 cylinders. If you get undersized throats you will spend a C-note fixing it.

.45 Colt mostly because it does the same thing as a .44 Magnum at less pressure, about 10kpsi less when both are loaded to the max. I shot .44 Magnums for well over 20 years before it dawned on me that it wasn't the kick that bothered me, it was the concussive muzzle blast. Switched to a .45 Colt and in equal length barrels at equal velocities the difference was notable.



Ruger throats are indeed much closer and more uniform for their .44 revolvers than their .45's, at least in Blackhawks. I've never measured a .45 Colt Redhawk but have measured a few .44 Redhawks and one SRH .44 plus several of each caliber in Blackhawks. If a gun store has a few examples of a particular revolver in either caliber and you want to do a cheap and easy test take a jacketed bullet of known diameter in and measure the throats. It should just slide into the front of each chamber with no wiggle.

If it hangs up or won't go in at all indicating an undersized throat it's really not that hard to open the throats, I've done it on multiple revolvers. Hard core machinists might cringe but I have used Veral Smith's method with complete satisfaction to both open throats and enlarge the "Ruger constriction" where the barrel screws into the frame.

And if you're looking at other than a Ruger, well, never mind...

I asked myself that question 4 decades ago, chose the .44 just I might need to buy factory ammo sometime - I've never regretted the choice.

But if I'd chosen .45 I'm sure I'd have never regretted it either. Win/win.

I've got a 4 3/4" EAA Bounty Hunter in 45 Colt which is fast becoming the favorite of all I've ever owned, including the Rugers. It's trigger needed work like every transfer bar SA I've ever owned; but it shot dead to the sights and its cylinder throats are 0.454” and so uniform I could not read a thousandth of an inch disparity between them. Shoots like a house afire with Lee 452-255-RF sized 0.454 from Maplewood Bullets .

If I could guarantee equal accuracy between the 2 cartridges, I would roll with a .45.

That said, having owned more than a dozen .45 revolvers, and the majority having throats of various sizes, I always went back to the .44.

It is very hard to find a Smith or Ruger .44 mag that is not a tack driver. The same definitely cannot be said for .45 Colts.

I will continue to own both, but normally reach for a .44, as it does everything I need.

A nice 4" Redhawk .45 with uniform chambers would be a true "one gun" for an outdoorsman who wanted a reasonably packable, and yet plenty powerful sidearm in the Wild Wild West.

I am getting the fierce wants for one of these... not quite the $1K+ wants, but fierce ones nonetheless.

The chamber throats in the 4" Redhawk slugged out .4525 to .4527. I shoot cast bullets sized to .451. It will shoot six into 2.75" groups (rested) at 25 yds. It would probably do a lot better for Mackay or some of the others on here, but that is good for me. My 44's all measure out from .4305 to .4320 (the oldest) and shoot about the same. Probably is more my fault again than the guns. My Smith has has the tightest throats of the 44's at .4305".

Both, they are all but interchangeable. Same bullet weights, same velocities, same recoil.

[quote=Jim in Idaho].45 Colt mostly because it does the same thing as a .44 Magnum at less pressure, about 10kpsi less when both are loaded to the max. I shot .44 Magnums for well over 20 years before it dawned on me that it wasn't the kick that bothered me, it was the concussive muzzle blast. Switched to a .45 Colt and in equal length barrels at equal velocities the difference was notable.



This was enough for me to go exclusively .45 Colt.

That and a gp-100 4.2" are on my short list.

The throats on this 45 are perfect.

So is the barrel length!

357:)

The 44 Mag loaded with the simple 250 gr Lyman 429421 at 1100 fps or so. All you will ever need for your deer and hogs.

One of the gun world's oft repeated old wives' tales. Newton's 3rd Law also has an issue with it.

For myself a 44. Just easier to get to a hunting load off the shelf in most any pistol. the 45 can do it no doubt but much more to consider for myself even though I reload.

Perhaps you don't understand Newton's third law. The 45 has 10% more area over which that pressure is acting, and hence at the same pressure as the 44, the 45 is going to have a greater reaction. Conversely, the 45 requires less pressure than the 44 to achieve the same velocity, a proper application of physics not some old wives tale.

I shoot both and love the 45 colt. [I would not give up my 44 mags] The 45 colt goes from mild to wild and seems right at home with either. I very seldom load down with 44's but not the case with my 45 colt. It is right at home with 255 cast at 850 fps. Than again for hunting, I go with max charges of 296 and either a 250 XTP or 325 gr LBT WFN depending on what I am hunting. Maybe it is just a mental thing with me. [loading down a 44 mag that is]

I have both. I haven't shot the 44 in a long time. I have a Ss Ruger Bisley 45 colt with 5.5" barrel - which is close to perfection in my book. I carry this gun alot when I'm hunting, retrieving meat, or plain hunting. When you set both loaded rounds side-side, it becomes readily apparent that the 45 is more cartridge.

FWIW I replaced a 4.5" 44 Ruger SBH with the Bisley. I do it again all day long and twice on Sunday. I've struggled not buying another Bisley 45.............

Well since the .41 Magnum isn't even under consideration and that has been my main revolver cartridge for over 25 years I looked at my favorite guns and asked the question which caliber could be put in these and still have what I have for what I do with them. Between the .44 Magnum and .45 Colt I came up with the same answer I gave a friend who was heavily invested in both .44 and .45 who was getting older and wanted to pare down... .44 Special.

My favorite revolvers are 4" S&W N-frames and the Freedom Arms 97.

I've had several 29s and 629s over the years in .44 Magnum and they are simply unpleasant to shoot. And don't ask why I can shoot a 4" .41 Magnum all day long with mild or wild loads... With a .44 Special I can up the velocity up to 1200 fps if needed and is about all the velocity I can take from a S&W. A slim barreled 629 Mountain Gun or 24-1 to me are just perfect vehicles for a .44 bullet.

In the FA 97 the .44 Special is the ideal round for those guns as the cylinders are short and as such .41, .44 and .45 Colt cast bullets have to be deep seated or chosen with care to not exceed max LOA. Another SA would be a nice Ruger mid-frame flat top .44 Special...

I've had .45 Colt in Ruger, Colt and S&W revolvers and just never did bond with the round. Just sold my last one a few weeks ago and probably won't own another.

So I guess my answer would be .44 Magnum but there wouldn't be much Magnum brass in the house...

Bob

I'd pick the 45 Colt, hands down, every time.

I think most bring up the throat issue with 45's because its obvious there are a lot of Rugers out there.

Don't think for a moment getting a 44 Mag gets you out of throats as small as .427 or as large as .434.

RJM could get some 45 S&W cases for the FA 97.....

Spot on 458Lott

If you're going to quote me please quote the whole thing. I didn't say anything about unequal recoil, I was talking about muzzle pressure.

".45 Colt mostly because it does the same thing as a .44 Magnum at less pressure, about 10kpsi less when both are loaded to the max. I shot .44 Magnums for well over 20 years before it dawned on me that it wasn't the kick that bothered me, it was the concussive muzzle blast. Switched to a .45 Colt and in equal length barrels at equal velocities the difference was notable.

The muzzle pressure is what causes muzzle blast. Since the .45 Colt will start out using less chamber pressure to drive an equal weight bullet to an equal velocity, the muzzle pressure in equal length barrels - colloquially "muzzle blast", is less as well. That was my criteria for preferring the .45.

But if some prefers the .44, go for it, it's one of the all time great handgun chamberings. Never let an internet forum or anything else dissuade anyone from choosing whatever they like best for whatever reason they like it.

Ruger's 45 Colt cylinders generally are in need of correction, especially to shoot cast bullets. However, that's a pretty inexpensive fix and there are several reputable guys doing it. I had the Cylinder Smith do my Redhawk before he retired. I need to have my recently acquired Bisley done.

Despite the Ruger 45's needing some throat work, I would still choose a 45 Colt over the 44 Magnum for the reason several have posted previously. Same weight bullets at less pressure and a bigger hammer. Nothing wrong with the 44, I have two of them and two 45's but I just like the 45 better when we're talking big bore magnum performance.

45 colt for me, I had two Super BlackHawks in 44 and a 29 and I have moved on to a 45 LC 5.5" bisley.

Its basically what others have said. I can shoot a cast load at 1100fps with pleasure. No blast or concussion like a 44 mag. I started with heavy bullets but now have moved back down to matching loads a wfn 265 for hunting and a 255 for fun and practice. Both shoot to the same POI. Based upon a small sample even the 265 is more than enough on deer. If I felt the need to go for elk/moose with the Bisley I could back up to the heavy bullet.

If I ever thought I needed more than what a 45 colt could do I wouldn't look for more velocity, but more bore size and bullet, probably one of those 480's that they just made.

BTW haveing the cylinder reamed was cheap and easy and made a difference with my bisley.

RJM,
With your obvious experience, knowledge, and abilities, I hesitate to question anything you say about handguns; but your statement about there not being much 44 magnum brass used when loading for a Smith Mountain Gun (44 mag) brings out a question. Why would you not just download the magnum brass to the velocity you choose. I have always felt, maybe wrongfully so, that accuracy from a 44 mag cylinder would be better using the longer brass. No argument intended here; I'm just inquiring as to the reason.

You almost had it. Stick to the part about the .45's greater area multiplied by the lower PSI equaling the total pressure of the .44 Mag. Compare the bolt thrust and hoop stress between the two cartridges.

PSI alone is a single variable and only tells part of the story.

Blah blah blah. Why not just repost the entire outdated Linebaugh article? Sorry but it's not quite so cut & dried as .45 Kool Aid drinkers would have us believe.

I've been shooting a matched pair of custom 4 5/8" Ruger Bisleys for 15yrs, one a .44 and the other a .45 and I'll be damned if I can tell a difference in recoil or muzzle blast. IMHO, this bullshit about less pressure is just wishful thinking. It yields the shooter nothing. If you think there's a difference, you're probably not using comparable loads.

No one ever mentions that the .45 uses 10% more powder to do it.

As far as which is a bigger hammer, it depends. EVERYONE always assumes that the .45 really is always bigger. It depends on the bullet. No one ever mentions meplat diameter. With cast bullets, the only dimension that matters is meplat diameter. If a 330gr .44 and a 325gr .45 have the same meplat diameter, then the .45 has no advantage whatsoever. Except that the .44 penetrates a little better. I tested a 335gr .45 with a meplat diameter of .345 and a 310gr .44 with a massive .370 meplat and they penetrated the same. In that case, the .44 is decidedly a bigger hammer. A 355gr .44Mag with .340" meplat greatly outpenetrated that 335gr .45 load (by 40%).

As I already said, the two are all but interchangeable and no amount of fanboism, fairy dust or wishful thinking will change that.

I guess you never bothered to load the .44 to similar levels? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Folks shoot reduced loads in the .45Colt, compare them to 1400fps loads in the .44Mag and conclude that the .45 is a milder cartridge but still a "bigger hammer". You're comparing 20,000psi to 40,000psi. A ~260gr 1100fps is safe for a Colt SAA.



Yeah, unless they're oversized. Virtually all .45's have oversized chambers and chamber mouths can go either way.

Usually more like 6000-8000psi.

I still like the 45 Colt better. Nyahh Nyahh.

There are a couple of other advantages to the 45 Colt. The ability to use 45 ACP in some models is one of them. If you reload 45 ACP you can supply both cartridges from one box of bullets. There is also the 45/410 thing which I also poo-poo'ed until I tried it. In practice, there is no handgun shot shell that can compare with it. Standardizing on 45 colt gives me options, from the American Derringer to the Redhawk, that simply aren't available with the 44.

Nothing wrong with that. I love both cartridges and their ancestors and I think the .45ACP has a lot to offer in a single action. I've wanted one of the .45 convertibles for a long time but have put it off because I'd rather have an Old Model .357 converted.

I know you didn't just reference those .410 thingies!!!

I’ve been retired for 15+ years. I’m out with the dogs, woods bumming all but a few days of the year and carry all day, every day. My go to guns are for personal protection (for peace of mind), targets of opportunity and recreational shooting. With that in mind.

I can get along with either cartridge in the platforms I use most. On the upper end either will run 320/330gr wide meplat cast bullets in the 1,150 to 1,200 fps from a 4 ¼” bbl. On the lower end, both can be loaded for pleasant all day shooting.

For me, it boils down to platform. The older I get, the more I gravitate towards smaller, shorter, lighter handguns and I tend to shoot the double action S&W a bit better than single actions.

Either the S&W M69 (4.2” L-Frame .44 Mag), or the 4 ¼” Freedom Arms M97 in.45 Colt would work for me. Both are medium frame, 4” bbls, and weigh 35 to 37 oz. Both can be used with iron sights or can be easily scoped. And, contrary to popular belief, it easy enough to work around the FAs worrisome “short LOA”.
.
FA M97 .45 Colt
.

.
L Frame .44 Mag – bottom gun.
.

.
The M69 .44 Mag is my current everyday carry gun.

FWIW,

Paul

Obviously I am not Bob, nor do I have his years of expertise.

I do exactly what you are talking about, and simply use .44 mag brass for everything. My standard load of 10 grains of Unique and a 240/250 grain cast SWC (medium load) could easily be duplicated in a Special case.

I find it very simple though to do 3 loads, essentially light, medium and heavy, all in magnum brass. This way there is a minimum of fuss, separating cases, adjusting dies, etc.

Easy Peasy.

Give me a .45 Colt in a 5 1/2'' Ruger single action and I'm a happy man.

I've found that 45 ACP actually makes a pretty darn practical field cartridge, and in a light SA, is quite fun. When I envisioned my "perfect" single action, it was in ACP. The new mid frame Flattops come pretty close right out of the box.

Throats got uniformed in this guy.

I came real close to getting one of the mid-frame convertibles but still have that nagging itch for an Old Model. I've already got a 6½" .357 with an XR3 grip frame just itching to become a .45. Probably make it a 4".

Even a Public Defender can be a lot of fun if you tweak the loads a little, maybe shave a few thousandth off the rear of the cylinder. Would have kept it but I had two good Tauruses in a row and was afraid my luck would run out.

From article by John Linebaugh with pressure data to back it up



http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm

I had to make the choice sever months back. I went with the 45 Colt in a 5 1/2" Blackhawk. I am as happy as I could be.

Wise choice. Got several of both and like my .45s better..

I will toss another vote for the .45, just love my 5.5" Bisley. I run two loads, a 255 flat point at about 1000fps and a 280 LBT at 1300fps and that is all I need out of a pistol.

Throating was $50 and cut groups in half.

Back to the op, for smaller whitetail it will not matter a bit, a .357 with good loads will stop 100lb whitetail quite easily.

Getting my 5032 delivered next week..not as strong willed as you.
Could not pass on the price...$835 shipped

Outdated information.

All the nonsense about "less pressure" is akin to a used car sales pitch. It yields the shooter nothing.

The .45 doesn't handle heavier bullets, or handle them "better", whatever that means.

The .45 doesn't penetrate better.

The .45 isn't always bigger.

Unless they're Keith SWC's, where the shoulder plays a role as well.

The problem with increasing meplats and bullet length is that as they get wider and longer, they need to be driven at times to absolute max to stabilize and shoot well, in any cartridge.

You bring up another good point about 45 Colt chambers; yes, a lot of them are still cut "Colt" style, but anyone using carbide dies in any straightwall handgun cartridge to get the cases to function in every gun is creating that condition.

I ditched the carbide dies to get brass that would load in my 29-2 and my Redhawk without issues.

I think if they are all the same, the 41 Magnum should get thrown in this discussion...

How is it out dated? The relationship between a larger and smaller diameter has not changed and will not change.

Did I tell you that I finally got one of those for myself?

I haven't got to wring it out fully, yet. I did run 6 through it the day I got it though. I can tell you that I like it velly velly much.

The shoulder has been found, by the likes of Veral Smith, to contribute nothing to the wound channel. If a big wound channel is the goal, the "Keith" bullet shouldn't be considered over any of LBT's designs. Nothing wrong with them, there are simply better options today.

With all the talk about throat issues with the .45 Colt, what should they slug out at? Is it consistency or size that's the problem?

Thanks for all the help and replies.

Terry

How is this information outdated? Please 'splain me.

The .45 IS always bigger all things (like meplat percentage) being equal.

Less pressure gets you less muzzle blast and less noise!

Just for "Cool Factor" alone, you can't get a 44 magnum like this...

I'm not talking about Veral Smith's theory. I'm talking about actual bullets we can pick up the phone or the mouse and buy. We can never assume that all things are equal. There is no credible discussion about this possible without addressing meplat. Yes, a .45 WFN is larger than a .44 WFN but this distinction is never made. Folks ASSUME the .45 is always bigger. It ain't. I'm sure there are more than a few who would ass-u-me that the 325gr .45 from CPBC is bigger than the 320gr .44 from the same maker. It isn't. The .44 is bigger by a good margin. Go up to the 335gr, which is the same LFN design. It's only larger by .005", which is nothing. Except that the 320gr .44 penetrates measurably better.

The Linebaugh article is very obviously slanted towards the .45Colt. You don't think anything has changed in the last 30yrs? How about bullet selection? Nothing in the article mentions meplat diameter. Keep in mind that Linebaugh makes a living building properly dimensioned .45's, not .44's. Because the .44 doesn't need a custom or rechambered cylinder to shoot well.

I'm shooting nearly identical guns and there is no friggin' difference between them with comparable loads. You guys act as if we're comparing standard pressure .45Colt to full pressure .44Mag.

No but you can get a hell of a fine .44Spl! Which is more efficient and has a greater velocity potential and very likely will not have .457" throats.

That is a Kings Custom on an original first generation Colt SAA. You think they would overlook bore, forcing cone dimensions? Besides that, no 44 special has the history or character of a 45 Colt. You might want to go somewhere else to find something wrong with this gun, you are wasting your time here...

That is a beautiful Colt, but you already know that!
Ronnie

Uh, yeah, I do. King's wasn't doing rechambered cylinders, they used Colt parts.

You guys ALWAYS ASS-U-ME I'm down on the .45Colt. I have six guns chambering the .45Colt, including the custom pictured above. I bought an $1100 Dillon 650 with a casefeeder just to load .45Colt. So take THAT bullshit somewhere else. I just base my opinion on actual merit, not romanticism and nonsense. The .44Mag and .45Colt are equals in equal guns but in the Colt SAA and similar platforms, the .44Spl has it all over it.

It has been found, by the likes of Elmer Keith and Brian Pearce (and to a hugely lesser degree, myself), that the Keith shoulder will cut a full diameter hole through the entire wound channel.

The LBT bullets (of which I have upwards of 50 moulds) rely on the meplat and velocity when using their widest designs, which you mentioned can produce even larger wound diameters.

If one was comparing sedate loads (think Unique, Power Pistol or Longshot powders) to use in their Mod. 25 or 29, the Keith designs give up nothing to the LFN and tend shoot better than the short, fat WFN's of the same weight, all the way down to plinking speeds. They will also still cut the same predictable full diameter hole...

Of course at the top end, the WFN/LFN LBT's will do more and do it with fine accuracy.

I've found using loads in the woods that one doesn't have to wear hearing protection for or gives one ringing ears for two days kill deer or hogs just fine; the 45 again does this better than the 44...just so we don't annoy the 44 fans, I'd pick the 44 over the .357 for the same reasons, diameter notwithstanding.

It will cut a caliber-sized hole in paper. The meplat is what creates the wound channel and determines the size of the wound channel. This doesn't change because of the shoulder of the semi-wadcutter design. And frankly, I don't want a caliber sized hole, I want a bigger hole and that is what you get with a bigger meplat.

Even Ross Seyfried, whose opinion to me matters a great deal more than any other public figure in the gunwriting fraternity, switched from semi-wadcutters to LBTs when he discovered them. Nothing against Pearce or Keith, but when Seyfried speaks, I listen.

Wow! Now I am really impressed! Take your 44 special and shove it, this has nothing to do with your preference in Pygmy guns...

It also cuts in muscle, lung....the shoulder cuts until it wears down. Not because Veral Smith said so or Ross said so, its because it does, way below velocities that large meplats work well at.

Try Verals nonsense; painting the shoulder. He claims that the paint stays there because of tissue spray. The problem is that his little experiment proves the exact opposite. The shoulder wears because it contacts the sand, muscle, tissue, whatever. Ross passed along the nonsense.
Even when driven faster, the shoulder still wears down, totally contrary to Veral's "knowledge".

I'm not disagreeing that the large meplat LBT's will not create larger wound channels, especially as velocity is increased, what I'm saying is that one will have no trouble taking deer with a Keith bullet not loaded to the gills with H110 and the Keith bullet performs similarly on the flesh whether driven 800 fps. or higher.

Actually, in 45 caliber, the Keith 280 (RCBS 270 SAA), the 280 LFN and the 280 WFN create pretty similar damage in deer when all bullets are driven around 1,000 fps. However, the RCBS bullet created a much more precise, defined hole, not just in the skin...of course as velocity is increased, yes, the WFN's created a larger diameter hole, but at the cost of noise, racket and recoil not needed to tip over a deer, for me.
When Ross started shooting large beasties, the increase in velocity and the need for more frontal area came into play. A caliber sized hole would not cut it.

A bullet cavitates in tissue until it isn't fast enough any longer, during cavitation I can't see how the shoulder is cutting anything.

Load up your favorite 45 Colt to black powder levels (I know, blasphemy!) and kill some stuff or try Veral's test.

Test at higher speeds, to get "tissue spray". Like clockwork, the shoulder edge will be worn down to a rounded shape everytime.....

Rugers are often undersized (.449-450) with barrel groove of .451+.
This can be bad ju-ju for cast bullets.
Ideally, .4525-.453 where one would want throats today.

Some Colt and Smiths of yesteryear had up to .457 throats and .450-.451 bores in 45 Colt. Two of my very fine shooting 45's have this "problem".

Granted, SAA 44 Specials were not uncommon to have .434 throats and Colt used .427 44/40 barrels, so its more of an understanding that your bullets should fill the throat, dies may swage your bullets during seating these over nominal dimensions, all of which can harm good results.

Bear in mind also that Colt had .356 throats on a lot of 38's and .357's with .357 groove barrels and Smith DX's often slugged .427 with .429 bores so its common to run into discrepancies across the board.

Did I stumble into the nursery???

History: the .44's ancestors, the .44S&W and the .44Russian, predate the .45Colt.

History: Elmer Keith figured out that the .44Spl was a better cartridge in the Colt SAA 80 fuggin' years ago.

Fact: .45Colt Kool Aid drinkers cannot handle an objective discussion involving the object of their worship.

This is typical in ALL Colt's and S&W's. I don't know what S&W has done as of late but even a brand new Colt will have oversized chamber mouths. Rugers can go in either direction.

The 250gr Keith bullet I recently recovered from ballistic testing showed no wear on the shoulder but the nose flattened and deformed slightly.

45 Colt for heavy bullets
44 Mag for lighter bullets at flatter trajectories

Thank you!

Newer Smiths are right at .4525/.453.

Honestly, the larger dimensioned guns are really no issue at all. Not understanding them is.

Here's an article caption that describes the results of using Veral's "test" and an animal.



The full write up is from Handloader 255 if anyone is interested.

Man people can allow their preferences to leave logic to the wayside.

Pick a revolver that is built to handle the 44 mag, and it can handle the 45 colt modern pressures. In that gun if it is chambered in the 44 mag it will (depending on barrel length): Launch a 300 gr cast bullet 1200-1300 fps. If it's chambered in a 45 colt, it will launch a 330 gr bullet 1200-1300 fps.

Now if you are using an LFN bullet design, per Veral's specs as a 44 it will have a meplat 0.130" less than bore diameter or .30", if a 45 it will be 0.32" in diameter which is a 14% larger meplat for the 45

Yes a 44 WFN will be larger than a 45 LFN, but a 45 WFN will be larger than a 44 WFN. A WFN by definition has a meplat 0.09" smaller than bore diameter or 0.34" for the 44 and 0.36" for the 45 and a 12% advantage to the 45

The 45 is always bigger by definition and picking and choosing different bullet designs is silly at best.

Now, for all intents and purposes I doubt there is a significant difference int the field between either round. Both in a quality gun are capable of outstanding accuracy and have more than enough power for NA game. I find the 45 a bit more flexible, especially with the availability of dual chambered 45 acp/45 colt guns.

I'd expect that result in sand but not in ballistic gel or animal tissue. I'd als expect that result if heavy bone is hit.

Verals "test" was to fire into sand, as that has been the test taken at face value over the years.

Ive seen nice round holes through deer lungs that are just like wadcutter holes in paper with the 270 SAA. The Brian Pearce article lists several examples of seeing the same thing, not to mention the bullet's designer describing the same thing.

Ive also seen the original Brenneke slug do the same thing despite having a round button nose for a meplat; in its case, the shoulder is what does the work, since the nose offers nothing.

Most who have used the original Brenneke to any degree know what Im talking about!

Skipped over most of the gibberish but still stand by my original reply. Terry wants to kill Texas whitetail and hogs. Pretty simple task to ask of a sixgun.

Not 100% true at all. "Ruger only" loads in a S&W are a terrible idea.



Patently false, more myth. I tested every heavy cast bullet in Hodgdon's data sheet and most bullets of equal weight yielded equal velocities. Except that the 355gr .44 was a mite faster than the 360gr .45. The .45 showed no advantage whatsoever.



That's fine in theory. That's fine if you're referencing bullets cast from Veral's molds. Either way, one MUST stipulate this. This is never the case. It is always assumed that the .45 is universally bigger. This discussion is always bullet weight and velocity. No one ever bothers to bring up meplat diameter. When the discussion is about commercial cast bullets, it is a very different story. Not picking and choosing at all, genius.



How is the .45 more flexible?

Again, the Keith bullets I recovered from ballistic gel showed no wear whatsoever on the shoulder.

I expect LBT's to do a hell of a lot more than cut a bullet sized hole.

Please explain why they are pigeon-holed in such a way.

This one can. I shoot a 45 Colt because I like it. I has nothing to do with not liking 44 call, it has everything to go with personal preference. A 44 call bullet will kill just as dead as a 45 call bullet of the same design and velocity. You like 44, I like 45, what the hell difrence does it make? The OUNasked what and why. I angered 45 Colt because I liked it. If that offends you then I suggest you make use of the ignore function,

Sorry, I have no recovered Keiths from the fake ballistic gel gutpiles.

LBT's (the WFN's/WLN's) do make bigger holes when wound up. They'll also garner more powder space or (gasp!) a reduction in pressure with standard data.
The LFN's mimic most Keith designs, since most have similar sized meplats and case intrusion, both of which respond with mild to wild loads.
FWIW, the holes in and out with the Keith look like paper punch holes...the LFN's at the same speed don't leave holes any bigger.

Smith 57

Did you miss the part where I said I like and own a bunch of both???



Well, I have real recovered Keiths from real ballistic media. In this case, it was 16" deep in Sim-Test.



In the background, you can see the base of the Dillon 650 I use to load .45Colt, the cartridge I hate so much.

Let us also keep in mind that Elmer Keith used bullets in the 12 BHN range. Not very hard. So any bullet he put through a critter would've expanded more than this one did. A 265gr .45 Keith from Dry Creek. The shoulder doesn't get a chance to do much when the nose expands like this. Something to ponder.

All this said, I love a good SWC and still use a bunch of them. They're good bullets but WFN's are better for big game.

They don't look as pampered when they almost go the entire animal....


...and I missed out on the BHN figures, meplat size and impact speed courses. 12 BHN is plenty hard, especially when kicked out of a 4" 44, 1,200 fps. at a deer 30 yards away.

6 isn't at 900 fps with a flat face.

This one went down hill fast.. My dog is better than your dog, my dog gets gravy train.........

Got me beat. I make my own dog food...

You guys have me beat, my dog died.


I am casting some 45 bullets from softer lead. 260 gr coming out around 1000 to 1100 fps and powdercoated. The hope is they will expand and still penetrate. Time will tell.

Odds are they'll work just fine.

Everything I've ever seen you attempt was top-shelf Scott. You're a good man and a perfectionist. Please post your results after you get those bullets the way you want them.

Spot on and the bullet in Brain's bullet in his article looked a bit soft. I don't see the shoulder doing jack and I've shot a lot of animals over the decades.

I would be really unhappy if my bullet's nose got mangled like that and it wasn't a hollow-point. How hard (or soft) is that bullet? How can you tell the shoulder is engaging when the bullet looks like that, or am I missing something?

If the LFN mimics the "Keith" design, then it probably isn't really a Keith bullet -- that term is misused more than "LBT-style." The 429421 has a rather smallish me plat and it shouldn't be expected to produce as big a wound channel as a real LFN. Also haven't found the LFN to be velocity dependent to produce a good would channel. IMHO.

Why can't we discuss this without the combativeness?

Your tone is and has always been as combative as anybody's. You bring knowledge to the discussion but at the cost of negativity. IMO things were much better before you showed up. Some of your followers are much worse. Whenever jwp or Craig C show up, there's going to be a fight. CC is a relative newbie but is a particularly nasty piece of work. jwp shows up more when you are around. He is technically proficient but a base poltroon when all is said and done. You could post some stupid [bleep] that you knew was wrong and jwp would side up with you. Just how it is.

HawkI is a longtime respected member who I don't always agree with but whom I always read because he knows wth he is talking about.

Mr. Knowledge has show up so

Gee, where to begin. Hawk1 and I rarely trade blows, so if I call him on a post to clarify, I don't see the issue and I doubt he does either. As far as being a longtime respected member is concerned, his presence here predates mine by ONE year. So I guess longtime is a relative term.

So things were better here before I showed up? When, eight, ten years ago? Really?

As far as jwp and Craig are concerned, I have no control, nor say in what they post or what they deem to be right or wrong, and frankly I don't agree in the least with Craig's position on the .44 Mag versus .45 Colt which is actually the topic of this thread before it got derailed. So, try again.

Now, on another note, what negativity is it that I bring here? I see you clashing with more members here than most in your 35,000 + posts and frankly I wonder sometimes why you are weighing in on the "tone" of this discussion and not the content.

Damn, Max, I've had EE on "ignore" for some time, and you went and quoted him so I sort of HAD to see what he posted!

(And NO, doesn't mean I have any problem with Max!)

I already weighed in. I consider HawkI a friend here on the fire. As far as when you showed up, I could GAS. You're not really a regular poster and neither is jwp. Whenever y'all show up, things turn nasty. You think I'm negative because I'm negative to you and the other two mentioned. Doesn't matter who "predates" who, HawkI's 16k posts outnumber yours ten to one and he probably mostly posts on this forum. I'm not going to bandy words with you all day, but it's just my opinion. Things almost always turn negative when YOU show up, not HawkI, and the other two [bleep] seem to follow you around licking at your heels just like that other retard who used to think the sun rose and set in your ass.

Sorry for the straight talk. Over and out.

Edited to say: I take sole responsibility for this even though mentioning HawkI. As the politicians say, the views here are my own. One more thing...even though your posts consistently have a negative tone (and that's what really struck me wrong, you taking somebody else to task), the other two morons are more at fault than you. You just seem to attract assmunches for acolytes.

Oh, so it's post count that you're alluding to. I see. So, unless I spew prolifically in every thread, whether I have something to add or not, I am not a "regular" here. I get it. No, Ethan, your 36,000 + posts only indicate that you spend entirely too much time on the internet, whether you want to face that fact or not is really up to you. I only post when I feel I have something to add, unlike you, evidently.

And what do you attract? I don't see you adding much but arguing over something unrelated to the topic at hand. You sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Hey ethan have you ever taken anything with a handgun besides a buffet?

Hawk and I have never disagreed before so you are full of BS as usual, but please carry on.

Mike, I hope you will accept my deepest apologies.

At least you understood that all I respect is somebody's post count. lol Have a good day.

I never said anything about you and HawkI disagreeing [bleep].

I will, indeed. I have always appreciated your posts, and benefited from you sharing some of your knowledge here. Only problem I've ever had was the sinful envy the photos of most of your revolvers brought out in me!

Sure seems to be much too much sniping at each other going on from some quarters. (Some) People will be people, I guess?

Well, you said I'm not a "regular" here despite eight years being a member and posting here -- mainly in this forum. You even stated: "HawkI's 16k posts outnumber yours ten to one and he probably mostly posts on this forum." So, how is one to interpret that statement Ethan?

But you are a hypocrite in that it is you who has brought negativity to this thread (as well as others - who I have NO control over despite the obvious desire on your part for this to be the case).

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever clashed with Hawk1, so what is the issue here? Really, what is it?

Wtf Whitworth? Post count does have meaning and when you try to equate yourself to another member because you've "been here" (another thing that most decry as having no meaning) almost as long, but the other dude has ten times as many posts, it means he's probably "here" more than you. Get it? Or not. You just seem to attract more clowns than a three ring circus too. "Mikewriter" another dude that has been here like two or three years and for some reason has me on ignore. Anyway, have a nice day discussing meplats and comparing who has killed the most civet cats.

No, it doesn't -- let me rephrase that, it counts to folks with high post counts. It only means that you (or someone else) feels the need to weigh in on many topics. It means you feel you have to share your opinion whether or not you have something to say or add. That is what it means. My post count doesn't reflect my time here. I just don't post unless I feel I have some value to add. That doesn't mean I don't come here to see what is being discussed. This is where you and I differ the most. I am not going to waste much time talking about BS as quite frankly not only do I not have the time (typically), but I don't have the desire to weigh in.

I cannot and do not have control over who posts on this forum or anywhere else. Why are you taking cheap shots at Mike? Because he has only been here a couple of years his opinion is suspect? This hierarchy you are trying to create based in post count is precisely the type of BS that keeps many would-be productive posters away from so many forums. Don't equate your propensity to spew incessantly with credibility, because I can assure you they are unrelated.

Your last snide remark brings us almost back on topic, which was the .44 Mag versus the .45 Colt - FOR HUNTING. Weigh in -- if you can. No one is measuring animal body counts (is that like post counts, Ethan?), but nose profiles and bullet types -- weigh in if you have something to add. But if you don't you probably will anyhow as you can add to your post count.

I hope that's a 44 Manglem; because if it's a 45 Colt, it might not do more than ruffle his hair

The 'Ignore' feature is one of the best ideas Al Gore had, when he invented the internet.

Anyone notice the cylinder release? Picture is reversed.

yea. a lefty S&W LOL

So that dog is actually white and black instead of black and white?

...and a 3 1/2' Model 27, at that.

If I am, this forum made it so. I've been participating on online shooting forums for 18 friggin' years. I have NEVER encountered one as combative and cutthroat as this one.

That's funny coming from you, one of the nastiest members I've encountered here. You're completely incapable of having healthy, heated debate without turning it into a brawl rifle with personal jabs and bullshit. You probably have so many posts here because you'd be thrown out anywhere else.

And no, post count doesn't mean a damned thing. I'd be ashamed if I had the post count of some here.

Apparently, you are too stupid to recognize a healthy, yet respectful debate when you see one. No one has disparaged HawkI or made a personal comment in his direction. Why don't you piss off while the adults talk about .44's and .45's???

12BHN is plenty hard for a deer bullet. The point is that it allows the nose to deform and expand, which knocks the shoulder out of the equation.

That "pampered" bullet illustrates the point precisely. It passed through 16" of ballistic test media without putting any wear on the shoulder. The XTP next to it went 9" and expanded to 0.64".

I have an unusual idea. Let's get back on topic.

I have to admit to never owning a 44 mag and.I bought the 45 because I fell in lust over one I shot over 40 years ago. I have owned a 44 Sol and kick myself often for selling it. I also admit to not shooting double actions well but have a fondness for single actions.

Now I may b wrong but I really have a herd time believing a deer, elk, or hog will ever know the difference between the 45 and the 44 when hit with the same weight Ang velocity. Dead is dead.

Now i do find it educational to learn more about the performance of different cast bullet styles and hardness so please carry on as at 66 years old I still have a lot to learn.

As to time at the Fire, you all are newbies to me.

Sent to my phone while at the beach with my bride of 37 years and head out for a nice walk on a beautiful 57 degree morning.

Agreed!

Frank Gorshin's dog?

I will be the first one to admit i ought to stay silent, and i surely don't have the experience of some of those posting.
Having said that:
I have a number of 44's, including a first year production colt in 44.40 with an additional 44special cylinder.
Number of 44magnums, and some specials.
I have a number of ruger/smith 45's.
I also have been casting for at least 20 years.
In real life i don't see a lot of difference between them subject to how they are loaded. Like counting angels on a pinhead.
I do know a 41 magnum put the lights out on a elk quite efficiently.
I do know one of those rcbs 270grain cast to 280 grain hollow points i fired throught some pretty heavy stuff expanded over .9 inches.
I do know that 310 grain 44 lee bullet went through ten one gallon milk jugs and was not deformed.
And I do believe metplate is important in either round.
I have some 230 grain lead pills for 38/357 that look like a beer barrel, they thunk stuff.
And i think all of them in that caliber will take care of most anything most people would ever run across.
But, I myself think the 45colt does it without the blast, recoil nastiness associated with the higher level 44 loads.
and as i remember one statement posted here is incorrect, for sure the 45colt predated the 44special and the 44russian.
and i do think for the small differences in diameter, 41, 44, 45 no matter if loaded with black powder, smokeless or whatever to around 1000fps to 1100fps do pretty much the same thing. Some with less nastiness. But what do i know.

41 Mag??? Will they go through both shoulders of a mouse?

I didn't buy the 45 Colt/45APC convertable but may load some of my small stash of 45 auto rim brass just for fun and bring it Quemado.

Since we got off topic, in the campfire tradition let's go to porn:

My .44 mag 3 screw flattop:





My 3 screw .45 colt BBQ gun:

That is a bbeauty. It looks so nice I won't make a smart assed remark about the wrong caliber.

45colt dispensers...

If you decide to git rid of that rifle please let me know!

.44 S&W American & Russian - 1870
.44Colt - 1871
.45Colt - 1873
.44Spl - 1907



The two cartridges can be loaded to equal levels and at equal levels, they have equal "nastiness". The problem here, as always, is folks comparing full bore .44Mag loads to mid-range .45Colt.

That bottom one is stunning!

My exact sentiments!

absolutely not.
I knew him first
i have shot the rifle
i already made remarks to him about it
you lose.

as to that three screw, i just got a three screw in 41magnum.
which i have loaded 260grain pills. kind of like the other two calibers.

HA!!! I give him great cigars. You will have to wait until I am dead to get it and Ole Chocolate.

Too funny...

Keith up there in Wyoming laid claim to it first at Quemado a few years back.

Sorry to disappoint ya'all

Will bring it to NM in july though...

Who are you to say who gets it? You only own it, Ron and I will settle this.

That's TFF!!!

If it was a single action, then it would be a 45 Colt. DA, then a 44 mag.

Just make sure you use a JSP or a JHP....everyone knows that Hardcast don't expand enough to kill things.....

I toss my vote for .45 Colt........I'm fortunate to have both a 629 and a 625 Mountain Gun......and the .45 Colt flavored gun will be the last one to ever leave my grasp.

This was just to show what I think of "ballistic gel".

Its really a 7 BBHN nose with a 28 BHN shank. It performed exactly as I wanted it to.

If Brians bullet was "soft", would not the nose expand like Craig says and have none of those signs of wear?

They don't show any wear on the meplat edge, either, because its ballistic gel.
[img:center][/img]

Some 44's: RCBS 250-K, H&G 503 (Elmer went to H&G after Lyman peeved him), LBT 280 LFN, a 38 OWC LBT.



I'll let you decide..

Some 45's: 260 LFN, 280 LFN, RCBS 270-SAA, LBT 340 LFN.

Some more food for thought. Above I posted the 150gr. LBT 38 OWC.

It has a larger meplat than both the LBT and Keith bullets.

Anyone care to guess if it creates a larger wound channel (leave overall penetration out of this one)?

For the 44 lovers....


FWIW, Elmer ditched frontal area to shoot really far and that is the primary reason he left the 45 Colt; that and the 300gr rifle bullets he tried kicking out of SAA's were way too much.

Elmer ditched the .45 because they weren't strong enough for what he wanted to accomplish.

The material I use is Sim-Test and it stops a 230gr Federal HST from a .45ACP in 4". It stopped a 225gr .338 in 11". It's tougher stuff than ballistic gel.

Why ballistic testing media? Because it'll actually stop a bullet, where they usually exit on critters. It's VASTLY more consistent to compare loads to each other than shooting critters and it's more consistent from test to test than wet newsprint. If you think you can do better, you're more than welcome to try.

The question was 'which one would you pick', I answered according to my own preferences. Both are very flexible but to me, the 44 is better when velocity and flatter trajectories are more important. The 45 meanwhile has the edge in heavier bullet options and when velocity is not as important.

Here's a good writing on the topic http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm

I have 3 "Old" Vacqueros, two in 45 Colt and one in 44 Mag. One 45 is a Bisley and the 44Mag is also a Bisley.

I went on a search for a Buffalo killer with these three shooters and used 300g slugs in each application and found the 45 reaching an over pressure mode earlier than the 44 Mag. All loads were with H110 powder and the 44Mag peaked out at 1377 fps and the 45s at 1213 fps. So for a comparison of just horsepower, in MY GUNS, the 44Mag was the velocity king.

In an accuracy comparison, IN MY GUNS, the 44 Mag was able to produce the best results.

So IN MY GUNS, my choice for Buffalo or Bear hunting would be the 44 Mag.

Every gun comes off the line with slightly different specs and either one of these would do the job efficiently I just went with the 44 Mag for the accuracy comparison. As "they" say your mileage..........

I'm curious what the over pressure signs were in your 45.

But it doesn't have an edge. As I posted earlier, I tested two identical guns (4 5/8" Rugers) with every heavy cast bullet tested by Hodgdon.

The .44:
310gr at 1314fps
320gr at 1282fps
330gr at 1226fps
355gr at 1130fps

The .45's:
300gr at 1176fps
325gr at 1241fps
335gr at 1225fps
360gr at 1060fps

Where is the .45's heavy bullet advantage? I'm not trying to be combative but this seems to be a popular myth that the .45Colt is somehow better with heavy bullets. I don't think this perception is based in reality.

45 Colt for me......have this Ruger along with a couple lever 45's

mucho boolits and other components too......

Oh......forgot have two Marlin 44's too.........

Wow.

Sure a lot of heartache over a couple hundredths of an inch and less than a hundred fps (if any).

And muzzle blast? Who shoots these things without hearing protection? I quit doing that decades ago.

My answer to the OP's question has always been either/or, depending on the price and condition of the gun - assuming starting from scratch (no dies, brass, or other previously owned component). For the non-reloader, it's an automatic ".44".

Well, I ended up with a 45 Colt. After listening to the arguments for and against each one (I thought the thread was very civil for the most part BTW) it came down to this; I've owned several 44 Mags in the past but never a 45 Colt. It was really that simple in the end and reason enough for me. After the decision was made I planned on getting a Blackhawk convertible in the Colt/ACP variety but walked in a local gunshop and they had a SS Vaquero .45 Birdshead sitting on the shelf and it was calling my name. I've always wanted a birdshead revolver too and this kills two birds with one stone.

I'm thinking this is going to be a fun pistol.



Thanks for all the replies. There was actually a lot to be learned in those 4 pages.

Terry

This is from Hogdon reloading site


44 mag

BULLET WEIGHT330 GR. BTB LFN GC
ManufacturerWinchester
Powder296
Bullet Diameter.430"
C.O.L.1.730"
Starting Load
Grains19.0
Velocity (ft/s)1,239
Pressure30,200 CUP
Maximum Load
Grains20.8
Velocity (ft/s)1,350
Pressure38,800 CUP


45 Colt

BULLET WEIGHT335 GR. CPB LFN GC
ManufacturerHodgdon
PowderH110
Bullet Diameter.452"
C.O.L.1.680"
Starting Load
Grains20.5
Velocity (ft/s)1,109
Pressure19,200 CUP
Maximum Load
Grains23.5
Velocity (ft/s)1,240
Pressure28,000 CUP


Notice 10,000 CUPS lower pressure for the 45 Colt and if the 80% rule is used the 45 Colt is under loaded


Here is chrono results with a 4 3/4" barrel 45 Colt

TC1: If your new 45 Colt sixgun says "NEW VAQUERO" on the frame, you understand you CAN NOT fire 45 Colt +P loads in it correct? No 32,000 CUP loads, as the NEW VAQUERO is built on the mid frame not the large frame. Please be careful!

I don't think anyone would want to shoot those 32k cup loads in a birdshead gripped revolver!

So what? The difference in pressure is meaningless. It's as meaningful as the few extra grains of powder the .45 uses to accomplish the same thing.

You just introduced two unnecessary variables. I'm not testing boutique factory loads. Boutique loads that we KNOW use non-cannister grade blended powders. Boutique loads that we know run right at or over industry maximums. I'm testing published handloads using data from the same source. Data, I might add, that correlates perfectly with Linebaugh's own data. If you can provide data that shoves the 335gr with more than 23.5gr of H110, I'll test it.

I'm also not testing FA's with minimum spec, linebored chambers and minuscule barrel cylinder gaps.

270winchester, Yes and thanks. I called Sierra this morning and talked to them about it. They said I would be fine with their Ruger loads to about the middle ground and from there use extreme caution. They say the action is a lot stronger than most people give it credit for but still no need to push it to the ragged edge.


458 Lott, you are correct sir.

Brian Pearce's Redhawk only loads that approach 50,000psi, begin a half grain over Hodgdon's "Ruger only" data. Starting with 24.0gr under the 335gr CPBC, he gets 1366fps out of a 7½" Redhawk.

That's a half grain over max with a revolver three inches longer than my Bisley Vaquero.

335 Cast Performance WLN-GC Hodgdon H-110 24.0 1366

335 Cast Performance WLN-GC Hodgdon H-110 25.0 1424

335 Cast Performance WLN-GC Hodgdon H-110 26.0 1485

335 Cast Performance WLN-GC Hodgdon H-110 26.5 1511

That's completely unproven. There is no reason to believe them stronger than the Colt or USFA SAA. I would load a New Vaquero no higher than the common "Tier II" 21-22,000psi.

About middle ground for the Ruger only loads would be right about Tier II level just as I stated.

How many have you seen come apart anyway?

The medium frame New Vaquero is not made in .44Mag. The New Vaquero is a medium frame. The .44Mag is ONLY chambered in the large frame Vaquero. That new model Ruger is building is a large frame Vaquero stamped "New Vaquero". Further confusing stupidity on Ruger's part.

Could someone please help me out with the specifics of this pistol?

The way I load nowadays, I can tell little difference between the performance of the two cartridges. My days of pushing the outer limits of are in the rvm.

So when I’m picking it is usually done because of the platform rather than the cartridge.

I do rather enjoy the S&W N frames and wish they produced more variety in 45colt, but it is what it is. So when I’m looking at DA it is usually 44mag when SA it is generally 45colt. That being said I do have a dandy 25-5 that I have owned for over 30 years and I covet mightily.

AJD

Sheesh!

My wrists would be swollen and begging for ice before I got through with a couple of cylinders of those top end loads.

I don't even like shooting standard pressure loads in the Redhawk, much less 50,000psi! A 335gr over 1500fps is going to be nasty!

It's amazing how just an extra couple grains of powder and 100+fps make a huge increase in fealt recoil. I've pushed 400 gr North of 1300 fps out of my 480, but it's just not a pleasant experience.

I've been using a lot of 355gr WFN's at 1400fps out of my .480 and with the wrong grips, it really sucks! I need to knock it back to 1200.

+1. That's 454 casull territory.....

The "action" on the New Vaquero, (whatever that means), is likely as strong as the older models, the issue is that the cylinder window is smaller requiring a smaller cylinder with less steel to withstand higher pressures, and that is significant. Standard Colt .45 cylinders are rather pathetic.

That being said, some effective loadings are possible at the lower pressure and is usually what I run with.

Performance is determined more by bullet style and weight and those are very effective at lower velocity...effective enough for me.

Higher velocity just gives a bit more range.

Those wimpy 300gr loads hit the 450 yard gong pretty hard at that.

You should PM ET for specifics as I could be mistaken. IIRC that is a Georgia Highway Patrol Commemorative model that came out back in the late eighties or nineties. It features an unfluted cylinder in 45 Colt caliber with the 5" barrel and was one of a limited run.

Thanks for the response EE. I didn't recognize it. I was always partial to the 5"ers and it looked like one.

320 grain DT 44 mag 6" barrel

Terry,

I'm glad you found something new to dink with and I wouldn't be afraid to load it like a 45 Auto...it will easily kill the stuff you were asking about, no issues.

There's a lot of "free horsepower" in the 45 Colt case that comes with a good selection of bullets that use its frontal area with out the noise, racket and recoil. The animals will still tip over.

CraigC,

If we're pissing over which one's got the more impressive ballistics, let's just move on up to a 454 or 480, or beyond . . .

Not pissing. We can't have a discussion about it?

Thanks Hawk. I'm looking forward to getting this one to the range.

Sure we can. I enjoyed your posts and learned a few things too.

Actually, the N Frame S&W you are looking at there, owned by my friend, Jim, is an S&W 25-7 in .45 Colt. There were only 2,000 made according to my understanding. They came with came with a 5" barrel, unfluted cylinder, and were inscribed with "Model of 1987" on the side.

I have one as well, and also know of one that was mutilated and turned into a snubby, so that only leaves 1,997 possibly left in the world for you to find.....

Very accurate, and a pleasure to shoot with my loads of 250 RNFP at about 1,100 fps

Starting Loads....................................................Maximum Loads

Bullet Powder Grs. Vel. CUP Powder Grs. Vel. CUP
310 cast H-110 21.5 1109 24,400 H-110 23.5 1316 32,000
310 cast H 4227 21 1016 24.900 H 4227 22.5 1164 30,000
310 cast #2400 17 1013 24.400 #2400 19 1172 29,400
310 cast HS-6 12.5 994 25.000 HS-6 13.5 1043 29,800

I had some 300 grain LRN .458's on the shelf (100 bullets marked $7, guess they'd been up there for a while). I resized them to .452 and loaded with 23 grains of H110. They were healthy, only shot six of them - holding the rest in reserve...or something. For a heavy Colt load I like the 270SAA bullet in a Tier 2 loading, accurate and doesn't beat your wrists up - and I'm pretty sure it'll thump anything that needs it.

Maybe my experience is different than others here. My choice of .44 Magnum or .45 Colt is NOT determined by terminal performance. The two rounds perform at a level that is too close to call.....they both work very well.

With that said I must admit that I am comparing loads pushing a 240-270 grain bullet at 1100 fps or so. At this level I have no problem killing any deer or hog that I might encounter and do so with comfort.

Yes the .44 and .45 can both be pushed much harder. I went through the days when I believed every round should be loaded as hot as possible.....but I got over it. If I regularly hunted Cape Buffalo with a handgun I might feel differently, but for my use the mid-level loadings are perfectly comfortable and effective.

For general use I prefer to go with the .45 Colt over the .44 Magnum.....not because of superior performance, but because of the guns available in this chambering.

The .44 Magnum was, from the beginning, a high pressure round and "most" revolvers chambered for it were built with this in mind. Thus they tend to be a bit bigger and heavier than a "typical" .45 Colt.

Elmer Keith did not choose the .44 Special over the .45 Colt because of some magical superiority of the .429" bore over the .452". He chose it because in the Colt SAA the cylinder walls were a bit thicker....a very important advantage when dealing with the high pressure loads he was using. Even then the strength of the SAA was "marginal" for loads in the 30,000-35,000 psi range. Remember Elmer "blew up" several revolvers when first developing the high pressure .44 loads.

For me, this becomes a problem. To safely handle high pressure loadings (in .44 Magnum as well as .45 Colt) the revolver must be built heavier and larger than a typical low to mid range pressure .45 Colt. I do not have large hands and find the typical .44 Magnum revolver to be just a bit too large to comfortable.

The SAA feels near perfect in my hand. My all time favorite .44 Magnum revolver is an original Ruger Flattop....which was very short-lived due to the fact it was not quite robust enough for a steady diet of high-pressure .44 Magnum loads. Even the N-Frame model 29 S&W is of marginal strength for heavy .44 magnum loads. The Ruger Super Blackhawk and other "proper" .44 Magnum revolvers are just a bit too much to be used every day....at least in my smaller hands.

I "could" solve this problem by loading the .44 magnum to mid-range levels (265 grain bullet at 1100 fps), but no manufacturer in his right mind will produce a .44 magnum revolver that can only handle lower pressure rounds. Thus, every .44 magnum revolver (with the exception of my beloved Flattop) is built just a bit too large for my hands.

The typical .45 Colt revolver (think SAA size) is just right for daily carry (in my hands) and will handle the mid-range loads I find to be so effective.

I think the .44 magnum has a place, but is not nearly so user friendly and versatile as the .45 Colt. The .45 Colt can be loaded to equal (or exceed) the .44 Magnum in a properly sized revolver.....but then I'd have to remember to not load those high-pressure loads in my SAA's and they would not be as comfortable in my hands due to the increase in frame size.

I own and will never give up my .44 Magnum revolvers, but they are more specialized than my everyday-carry .45 Colt. Each has it's place, but for me, the .45 Colt is my choice for everyday use.

Own both, shoot both, killed plenty of deer with both, no differences in accuracy or killing power.

For me it doesn't matter, not a nickles worth of difference between the two performance wise, but I do think the 45 Colt is a bit more nostalgically cooler.

Make a great carbine load!

I agree and Colt-sized guns are my favorites for carry and general purpose use. Although I prefer the .44Spl in mid-sized guns such as my custom Old Model Blackhawk .44Spl. Along with several Colt's, USFA's and Uberti sixguns. But this discussion was more about, or became about, the maximum potential of the two options.

The original Ruger flat-top .44's were the same frame size and strength as the Super Blackhawk that eventually replaced it. What made the Super easier to handle was the longer, heavier, steel grip frame.

The only gun Keith ever "blew up" was a Colt .45 and that was just the loading gate.

The Keith 1200fps .44Spl load has been tested many times at 25-26,000psi.

Not sure the source of this but its very close to my observations in a couple of 45 colts. My heavy load is 23 grains H110 over a 300 gr BTBWFN for 1250-1275 in my 5.5" Bisley. I've also run 2400 to 20 grains but can't recall the velocity - accuracy with H110 was much better. I also run HS 6 for a plinking load and run it 950 ish. I dig the 45 colt.

The source is Hogdon

That will make you a dandy little packing gun, even if you need to throw on a jacket & run into town. Great choice.

While learning about heavy loads in the .44, I pushed the heavier projectiles at the best speeds I could get, using H110.

In the end I found out that while bullet weight helped, and 300+ grain .44s are exceptionally effective, shooting them faster than 1200 FPS really did not get me much, performance wise.

What I quickly realized was that shooting the heavy bullets at a more sedate speed provided substantially better accuracy on my part through recoil control. The 320s at 1350 may be just as accurate (mechanically) as 320s at 1200, but I personally could not shoot them as precisely.

240/250 grain loads are another subject entirely, but as far as the heavy for caliber 300+ grain 44s (and .45s) go, I see no reason to push them past 1200.

Non-handloader, I'd say .44 mag.

For Loonies, the .45 Colt offers a lot. It's my pick of the two and I have both.

I took a .44 three screw SBH, had Jim Stroh line bore to .45 Colt, fit a 6" Shilen barrel, build custom sights, fit a long ejector. I did a trigger stop, tweaked the trigger to near perfection.

DF



It shoots: 20 yds. over a bag.



Hog medicine, 270 gr. Thunderhead by Penn Bullets.

I'm thinking I want to load up some of those Thunderheads for my MG to test prior to bear season this year.

George

They do hit critters with a whallop; no they don't bounce off...

DF

Frogman did a good job there, and I can only touch up on one point. The barrel actually says "Model of 1989". IIRC the 5 inch stainless 625 in 45 ACP I had a few years back, was marked "model of 1988" Not sure what the 1987 gun was.

Can't remember if those were guns from Ellett Brothers, or some other distributor.

I have one of those .45 Colt 25-7's with unfluted cylinder, "Model of 1987" on the barrel. Sweet gun, very smooth.

Didn't know they were that rare.

What they worth?

BTW, I got a Brownells tool to ream throats, have done all my .45's that were too tight. They now all Kosher, shoot great.

DF

After your post, I had to go dig mine out and make sure I read that right. Sure enough, mine does say 1989.

Whatever year your pistol says, if it is a Smith 25-7 with a 5 inch barrel and an unfluted cylinder, you have a dandy.

I like mine quite a bit.

Whoops, wrong date...

I was wrong, the pistol is right, of course...

Like mine, too.

DF

Thanks for the response/heads-up.

I really like my 25-5 and that looks like it would be a great one to have and use. My 25-5 is a 6" and I always thought a 5" would be one to have.

Sounds like you are correct, a tough one to find.

I have a Classic 44Mag with the 5" barrel, it was a special run, IDK 20 or so years ago, but it has the full length underlug. I don't much care for the full length under-lug. So I am trying to stay away from that.

I also have a 686+ that was a stocking dealer special about 10 or so years ago. It has the 5" barrel with the short lug. I like it, IMO the way a S&W is supposed to be. I've never seen any others like it.

I love both Calibers and own several handguns in both .44 mag & 45 Colt.
If I didn't handload, my first choice would definitely be the .44 magnum.

But for everyday carry working here at the Ranch, I'm usually packing a Ruger Flattop in 45 Colt with 250 gr WFN cast bullets loaded to 1100 FPS.
If I'm packing one of my .44mag revolvers, it's usually loaded with a .44 special load consisting of 260 gr WFN cast bullet at about the same velocity. About 10 grains of Unique or Herco works orders with either load.

In my experience, I've found that a good hard cast lead bullet with a wide flat meplat at 1100 fps will kill anything I need to shoot at the Ranch. And that's counting up to and including 500 lb feral hogs. Although most of our hogs will go only 350 lbs or less.

JMHO, for whatever it's worth.

Here's the above custom .45 Colt SBH with stag grips that I fitted and installed the Ruger medallion.





S&W 25-7 1989 with elk grips:







Reamed throats.

Since we're still stuck on pressure, let's look at what that extra 6000-10,000psi actually yields you. With the .44, you can drive bullets the same sectional density (330gr .44 vs 360gr .45) 150fps faster and get a little more penetration. Or you can drive the same weight bullet (330gr .44 vs 335gr .45) at the same velocity and get a lot more penetration.

Isn't the 45 Colt brass the limiting factor in how hot you can load your ammunition?
I thought that the 44 magnum brass was stronger.
I load my 629 with Lyman #429421 22bhn at 1200 fps from a 4 inch barrel. That seems like plenty to me.
If not I know where I can find a rifle.
whelennut

Good .45Colt brass is good to at least 50-55,000psi. Dick Casull used it developing the .454. Think 260's at 2000fps.

Just don't think the noted game will know the difference. I have a 44 SBH. I want a 45 LC cause at 54...I'm still a "saturday morning western" cowboy.

The 45 cylinders are often oversized. That lets the brass expand more and has to be worked over more during reloading. According to John Linebaugh, that's why Elmer Keith didn't like the 45.

Can anyone tell me why Model of 1989 was so important to S&W that they named a handgun for it?

Elmer's .45's were SAA's. If he had .45 Ruger Bisley's, etc. he may have had a different opinion.



Regarding the 1989 significance, I would also like to know the answer to that one.

DF

If Keith had not experimented with the .44Spl, which led to the .44mag, which led to the large frame Ruger single action, there never wouldn've been a .45 strong enough for "Ruger only" loads.

this is a little off topic, but this thread made me think of it.
I have a hybred, 44special. Hibred, in that it started life as a model 28, was rebarreled to 44special, and not sure about the cylinder other than it accepts 44special.
Not that i would want to do it, but i wonder how much pressure it could accept? This was done back in the 70's i think often called a Skeeter conversion.
i cast the lyman 429421 bullet and have used in this gun but kept velocities down under 1000fps.

It should be fine for the Keith load.

Great point and very true...

DF

It should be at least as good, pressure wise, as the M25-2 45 ACP so 21 kpsi.

all this talk of 45colt/44 made me pull out a model 25-5 i have. original owner let it get some spots of rust on it, which i have been working on off and on.
with that 270 grain rcbs bullet, especially in the hollowpoint configeration, i can't think of much i would run into that it couldn't handle.
I still don't think hyper velocity is all of it.
and i have handguns between 41 and 45 that will all push a 250grain something at 1000fps or over which i think in reality does it.

When faced with this dilemma, I chose a .45 Blackhawk convertible. Since then however, I have come to the conclusion that, from a purely practical standpoint, I simply have no real world use for that much horsepower on tap.

The medium bores just seem to fit better for what I need from a handgun. There are no big bears or moose in this part of the country and I've yet to see a hog that a 170-210gr., .357-.41 caliber bullet, at reasonable speeds couldn't kill.

I'm nearly sure it was a distributor run, that's all.

You could say the same thing if Elmer had started with the 45 Colt. Tighten the cylinder bore and strengthng the frame and there might never have been a 44 mag. Both required modifications to existing firearms.

Both are good at their job and I see little advantage of one over the other.

Not really, the path is quite clear. He did start with the .45 and the guns weren't strong enough for what he was trying to accomplish. It couldn't have happened any other way.

The large frame Ruger .45 did not come about because Ruger wanted to build a stronger .45 to explore the cartridge's potential. It came about because when the .45 debuted, they were only two years from consolidating all Blackhawks into the large New Model frame.

OK but Elmer still needed a stronger built gun for what he was trying to do. I thought SaW were the ones he worked with in the beginning.

It really makes no difference to me. They both do the job. I like my 45 Colt Blackhawk and have no plans to add a 44 Mag to my small collection but would love to play with a 44 Special, maybe in a flat top. I still kick myself for selling my Charter Arms target bulldog in 44 Special. One of the few double actions I could shoot well.

In reality i can load the 45 Colt down for can killing or use my small herd of 45 Auto Rim to duplicate 44 Sol loads. Its all fun.

FWIW, if any one has a 1917 Colt or a 45 New Service lying around, please show where at all it has less meat than a SAA or S&W in 44 Special from the same period...also check the bolt notches, where more than a few 44 Specials in SAA were ruined using his loads. Compare the notch location of those guns to the New Service, then compare it to the Smith.

Elmer did what he did for he himself alone "wanted".

His primary reason for going to the 44 Special was shooting at long range and not for killing power alone.

I can pretty much guarantee he would scoff at the LBT WFN's and WLN's because he had already ditched the concept.

He hated the New Service because the gun and grip did not fit him; he liked the size and fit of the SAA and the N frame Smith. he also felt (incorrectly) that the triple lock and ejector shroud and foreward lock of the Smith guns made them stronger.

Another FWIW, the New Service frame is still the largest framed revolver produced by Colt....

If anyone wants to know, the 1917 Colt will eat +P+ all day long.

[quote=Dirtfarmer]Non-handloader, I'd say .44 mag.

For Loonies, the .45 Colt offers a lot. It's my pick of the two and I have both.

I took a .44 three screw SBH, had Jim Stroh line bore to .45 Colt, fit a 6" Shilen barrel, build custom sights, fit a long ejector. I did a trigger stop, tweaked the trigger to near perfection.

DF


DF, that came out really nice.

It's a keeper, for sure.

DF

my choice:



1873 Colt Series 3 Manufacture by Colt





45 LC

The bearing surface of the 45 Colt is approximately 15% more than the bearing surface of the 44 mag, thus the Colt 45 is acting against more friction with the contact of the interior of the bore than the 44 mag. How much does that off-set the 10% larger surface area for pressure to act on of the rear of the 45 Colt bullet?

The New Service is big but it's deceiving. Due to their heat treatment, or lack thereof, they're not suitable for loads exceeding that of .45ACP.

Keith never blew a .44Spl. Pure myth.


"His primary reason for going to the 44 Special was shooting at long range and not for killing power alone."
BS. He was very clear why he went to the .44Spl.

They had the same lack of heat treatment as the 44's of the era...plus there was more meat and no bolt notch directly above the cylinder, even in 45 Colt.
Elmer wasn't a New Service fan.

Never said Elmer blew a 44 Special; plenty of others chasing his tail and using his loads wrecked perfectly good guns doing so.

Mike Venturino knew Elmer and as a young lad "chased his tail"...ask him about using "Elmer loads" in a 44 Special, or even the 38-44.

Elmer ditched blunt heavyweight 44 slugs because they lacked accuracy and had high trajectory at long range, no lack of killing power. The 45 Colt gave the same results.

He was loading the 45 Colt to 1,100 fps and the 44 Special to 1,200 with the same weight bullet.
The 44 obviously shot flatter, penetrated better, but darned if it didn't cut as large of a hole...adding more powder didn't change this.

Anyone who damaged their .44Spl with the Keith load used it in the wrong gun.

And what's the point of this?

All I know for sure was that Elmer didn't invent smokeless powder and jacketed bullets. What he did is incidental in that regard as this type of conversation would still exist today with some one else trying to get more out of what was available.

I have 3 45 Colts and not a single 44 magnum and have not missed out on any hunting or shooting opportunities because of that. The 45 Colt hasn't given me any advantage over someone else shooting a 44 magnum and I never would make that claim other than I probably shoot my 45 better than most will shoot their 44 magnum.

The OP was a question of preference not superiority...

I know its not privy to this discussion, but someone has been busy making 41 Magnum bullets....

I asked on this forum a while back about 45's. Member offered to let me shot his 25-7. To say I liked it would be an understatement. Wound up buying a unfluted 25-9 then a 625-4.
Was offered a 25-7 a month ago and could not pass it up. No experience with a 44. Hasbeen

I've got seven .44Mag's, five .44Spl's, two .44Colt's and six .45Colt's and it ain't nowhere near enough. I'd say you're missing out on a good bit.



Oh really?



No but this conversation can never exist without 'some' stating that there is superiority of one over the other. Most of it being myth, legend and wishful thinking sprinkled with a liberal portion of bullshit. Of course, statements like that below do little to maintain civility.



You can shove ten .45 Colt's up your ass as far as I'm concerned. It won't change anything.

Negligible. Peak chamber pressure generally occurs about the time the bullet breaks neck tension and jumps to the lands. As the bullet moves down the bore the volume of the combustion area is rapidly increasing with a corresponding decrease in pressure. Generally every time the combustion volume behind the bullet doubles the pressure is cut in half.

I am happy for you and your gelatin block, bent bullet discoveries. You want to keep on pressing forward with your vast knowledge of ballistics that have little or no value to anything but a gelatin block or a lead pot.

I doubt you have or will contribute to this forum any more than criticism. Arguing with you is like wrestling a girl, winning is easy and pointless...

For the sake of this argument you can't make any value statements that are valid unless you have the following:

1. Bullets made of the exact same material and constructed identically - the only difference being one is .45 cal the other is .429 cal.

2. The cylinders must have the same amount of clearance between the chambers and the OD of the loaded rounds.

3. The barrels must be the same length, identical metallurgically, and rifled as close to identical as possible.

4. The throats have to give identical clearance to the bullets.

5. Then you could pull a bullet through each bore to determine if the coefficient of friction is identical as you claim. Absent the above, you can tell the world the difference is negligible, but you wouldn't know if you were right or wrong.

I never claimed anything of the sort. Your question was:



My answer was "negligible".

I'm curious where you come up with the greater bearing surface on the 45, looking at bullet designs on the Mountain Molds website I come up with less bearing surface for the.

For the same weight bullet the 45 is shorter and assuming one uses the same nose length i.e. forward of the canalure on an ogival wadcutter i.e. lfn shape the 44 has a longer base and longer driving bands than the 45 for a given weight. In the case of a 250 gr with a .35" nose and 75% meplat the 44 had roughly 10% more bearing surface due to the longer base bands for a single lube groove bullet.

If you want to have a closer comparison it's better to use a 10% heavier bullet and at that point the 45 has 10% more weight, base dia, wound channel and due to lower operating pressure about 100 fps slower all while burning the same amount of powder than the 44.

Everyone has their preferences, but the math doesn't lie.

Dang. I leave for a day or so and guns are being shoved up backsides. Rough neighborhood!

Not all..

25-5 6"

Yes, you said the difference would be negligible.

I simply calculated the circumference of the .45 cal bullet compared to circumference of the 44 mag (.429 cal). Comparing the circumferences shows the .45 cal bullet's circumference is 15% greater than the .429 cal bullet. Given the same length bullets, or say the same length of contact in the bore, the .45 cal bullet will have 15% more bullet exterior contacting the bore than the .429 cal 44 mag.

What you just posted above shows my ignorance regarding the length of 45 colt bullets vs. the lengths of various 44 magnum bullets. I have learned something and stand corrected.

Once again you have educated me. Thank you.

Indeed it does not.

I was a deputy in Texas for 17 years. The issue of stopping power of various cartridges was always a lively debate.

One theory, not mine, but I happen to agree with, is you can only count on damage being done to your assailant by the tissues the bullet actually hits. Temporary cavitation, hydrostatic shock, etc...could not be counted on to stop an adversary. The only damage one could count on to stop a bad guy was damage done to the tissue the bullet actually hit. Ergo, a bigger diameter bullet (45 ACP) driven at a decent velocity, was more likely to stop an attacker than a smaller bullet (9mm) driven at a faster velocity. I agree with that 100%.

Great observation.

The reason the 45ACP was adopted.

17 page debate lol. Normally goes on much longer and this one probably will. My caliber of choice is the 45 colt. Great game hammer when loaded and has the added benefit of punchin a larger hole. Bigger hole is a good thing. 44 mag will do well if thats what you choose as well.

Me too. I load a cast 270grain rcbs saa to about 280 grains, in several styles of hollow points. Fro a human standpoint, it is a freight train.

Yeah, so scientific testing with as few variables as possible, using a medium made from animal protein that's designed to replicate muscle tissue, with two guns that are as identical as possible and loads that are as comparable as possible, is less useful than starry-eyed, puerile bullshit about "history and character"??? Good to know I'm sparring with such an intellectual titan.......or something.



What an impressive sense of superiority you have! Winning an argument usually involves actually having one. You seem to have skipped the argument portion of this conflict and gone directly to personal insults. The question is, do you actually have anything meaningful to add to this discussion??? Or is "history and character" and "shove it up your ass" about the sum of it?

In fine Campfire style and a language you can easily understand, GFY.

Me too. I load a cast 270grain rcbs saa to about 280 grains, in several styles of hollow points. Fro a human standpoint, it is a freight train. [/quote]

I am working on casting some 320 gr now. A five cavity 320 gr mould empties my lead pot pretty darned fast!

Someone was emailing me some questions, and this thread (once you cut through the arguing) has some good information.


I still tend to roll with the .44 for the reasons stated above.



I have yet to shoot a critter where substituting a heavy .44 load for a heavy .45 load (or vice/versa) would have made the slightest bit of difference.

The above is one of if not the best in the whole thread. I like the 45 Colt and my Blackhawk seems to be one of the ones Ruger did right but the difference between the 45 Cold and a 44 Mag is to small to loose ant sleep over.

i have two three screw blackhawks in the right caliber, 41magnum.
for those that have a little more refined taste than 44 or 45
and to really get it going i was loading for a buckeye special yesterday in 38wcf. A litle bit of lube on the casings was preventing the rounds from entering the cylinder, and while seated to the stated o.a.l., they were just a little sticky with the cylinder inverted. And ruger cylinders are sloppy?
Of interest is reading an article yesterday by a guy making his own cylinders in 38wcf for the buckeye special, and getting 1500fps out of his loads.

My Colt 32-20 is a bigger hammer than either!!!

you know i do have a double action colt in 32.20, turn of the century gun. Kaywoody would be interested.

My first handgun was an H&R 949 .22 bought for me by my Dad at a local hardware store. I killed a lot of possums and such with it when they were worth something for their fur. I was talking with a local gunsmith who was a strong Ruger advocate. The Super Single Six is probably far superior, but I was happy with the H&R. The gunsmith wouldn't work on an H&R. His quote was something like, "I wouldn't have an H&R shoved up my ass,". My friends and I often wondered what make of handgun he would have shoved up his ass. A Ruger, I reckon. I personally am not anxious to have any handgun shoved up my own ass. Others' mileage may vary.

Ron, bring it to Quemado - I'll bring my Bisley, if we can make it. We'll have Kaywoodie slobberin' !

I read a news article about a prison inmate who smuggled a K-frame in his ass. We all have our standards.

And varying capacities, evidently.

I dated a girl for a while who often used the 6 inch barrel of a 686 as a dihldoh

I'd take 44 because I already have 45 colt, plus I have a rifle in 44 and no revolver to pair up with it.

yeah but was the front sight still on?

Yes

Pretty easy. I'd go with 44 if I didn't reload. I do, so it's the 45 for me. Also, the FA97 doesn't come in 44, so it makes it even easier to pick the 45 in an easy packing gun.

I now have 3 .45's.

Ruger 3 screw 4 5/8"
S&W Mountain gun
S&W 25-7

It has been quite a learning experience loading cast for them. The Ruger must have been screwed with. Ended up opening all the throats to .4555

The Mountain gun was a bit tight. Opened that one up to .452

The 25-7 is .452

The .45 Colt is the first handgun I ever loaded for. Had to restudy the process and figure out what works and what doesn't when shooting cast. Almost there!

If it is your first bigbore revolver get the .44. Ammo and components are easier to find and you are less likely to have problems matching bores, throats, and bullet diameters.

.44!

+1

45



44

Easy - both!

Too cool.

Makes the choise a LOT easier.

I had a .44 three screw SBH line bored to .45 Colt by Jim Stroh. He fitted a Shilen barrel, custom long ejector, custom front sight. I did the trigger job and grips. It's a tack driver. I like it a lot better than when it was a .44 mag.

DF

If you can't read my writing, part of it off the page, it's a 255 gr. Bull-X SWC over 18.5 gr. 4227. I don't think Bull-X still makes bullets, this was a few years back.

This was a Keith type SWC, the target was at around 20 yds. shot off a bench. Most of the variation was vertical, probably a function of how the gun was held. It would probably shoot one hole with a Ransom Rest.

DF

that's a really nice rig--and very accurate too.

for the past 35 years i've used W296, but i always figured if i were starting over i might consider using 4227.

a friend of mine used 4227 back when he shot in competition, with great results...

i remember the Bull-X bullets (A-Zone; and Zero too)...

4227 leaves some residue, but has a really smooth pressure curve compared to H-110/296. It's easy on guns. It's my favorite in the 24" Marlin Cowboy .45 Colt. Pushing 300 gr. Precision Cast slugs at max velocity, it burns pretty clean...

Jim Stroh's work is top notch.

DF

I like both, but when it comes to cast bullets for game I prefer my Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt!

Gun: S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum 6 1/2 inch bbl.
Bullet: Montana Bullet Works/Lyman 429244 255 gr. SWC-GC (.430)
Powder: Alliant 2400 20.8 grs
Primer: Federal 150
Case: PMC
Velocity: 1333.16 fps
Comments: Cylinder throats .431

Gun: Ruger Bisley .45 Colt 7 1/2 inch bbl.
Bullet: Montana Bullet Works 250 gr. WFNGC (260 grs./.453)
Powder: Hodgdon H-110 24.4 grs.
Primer: CCI-350
Case: Federal
Velocity: 1450.80 fps
Comments: Cylinder throats .4525

I like that!

I have a custom .45 Colt Bisley by Jim Stroh that I picked up used several years ago. It won't quite group with the line bored SBH that Jim did for me, but is no slouch...

It's prettier than the SBH...

I fitted the grips, installed the Ruger medallions.

DF



Here's a three screw .45 Colt Blackhawk that I fitted with a SBH grip frame, SBH hammer, after market rear sight, a trigger job and blue MANY years ago. Micarta ivory grips have turned yellow over time.